From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Cc: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [15] Custom WAL resource managers, single user mode, and recovery
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2022 23:42:56 -0400
Message-ID: <3228527.1657856576@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220715033215.7dubjyp4tbl3zkot@awork3.anarazel.de>
References: <9decc18a42634f8a2f15c97a385a0f51a752f396.camel@j-davis.com>
<3192874.1657846137@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20220715033215.7dubjyp4tbl3zkot@awork3.anarazel.de>
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2022-07-14 20:48:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (I wonder if we shouldn't refactor this so that the postmaster
>> and standalone mode share more of the initialization logic.
>> Keeping these bits in sync seems unlikely to happen otherwise.)
> Yes, that might be worthwhile. OTOH, I wonder if we should spend that time to
> remove single user mode instead - the architectural complexity really doesn't
> seem worth it anymore, and IMO my prototype from a few months back showed that
> it's feasible.
I dunno ... if your DB is in bad enough shape that you need to resort
to single-user mode, you probably don't want any more moving parts
in the system than you absolutely have to have. Autovacuum, custom
background workers, and the like are going to be counterproductive.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andres@anarazel.de, pgsql@j-davis.com
Subject: Re: [15] Custom WAL resource managers, single user mode, and recovery
In-Reply-To: <3228527.1657856576@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox